Libellus of Condemnation of the Errors Contained in, presupposed by, or underlying the document ‘Amoris Laetitia’

Mindful of the teaching of Our Most High Lord, Jesus Christ, that our “Yes”, be a “yes” and our “No”, a “no”, and, similarly mindful of the teaching of His Vicar on Earth, Pope Pius VI, of good memory, who taught:

“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger, under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic Truth is camouflaged”

We the members of Veri Catholici wish to express our loyalty to the faith which we have received from the lips of Christ through the preaching of the Apostles, as handed down in the Catholic Church and fortified by the infallible Magisterium of the Church, in condemning the so called Apostolic Exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia” as a work of…

The great and saintly Supreme Pontiff Pope St. John Paul II of august and happy memory reaffirmed and taught perennial Church practice and doctrine[i] deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore, irreformable[ii], that:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[iii]

By excising this section out from wherever they reference No. 84 in Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981) of the great and saintly Supreme Pontiff Pope St. John Paul II of august and happy memory, Pope Francis & The Synod on the Family 2015 STAND CONDEMNED! by that act alone and because in addition :

1. Pope Francis & The Synod on the Family 2015 failed to reaffirm and teach perennial Church practice and teaching deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore, irreformable.

2. Pope Francis & The Synod on the Family 2015 failed to imitate the great and saintly Supreme Pontiff Pope St. John Paul II of august and happy memory who reaffirmed and taught the perennial Church practice and teaching deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and therefore is irreformable.

4. Pope Francis failed to condemn, admonish, and correct the Synod on the Family 2015 which had failed in their function and duty to provide effective assistance to him as pope by failing to reaffirm and teach perennial Church practice and teaching deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore irreformable.

6. Pope Francis alone stands condemned in issuing his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia which fails to reaffirm and teach perennial Church practice and teaching deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore, irreformable.

7. Pope Francis alone stands condemned for the following footnotes that are in the place of, stand in contrast to , distort, misuse and contradict the teaching of the great and saintly Supreme Pontiff Pope St. John Paul II and the aforementioned excised section in No. 84 in Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981):

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). – Cf. Footnote 351 [paragraph 305],Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).

and

John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51) – Cf. Footnote 329 [paragraph 298], Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).

9. Pope Francis alone stands condemned in exhorting Bishops, priests,deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples and all the lay faithful, an exhortation and teaching that deliberately omits to mention a pertinent perennial Church practice and teaching deriving from and belonging to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore irreformable, and thereby presents an exhortation and teaching that is lacking, distorted, misleading, and that is not faithful to perennial Church practice and teaching which derives from and belongs to respectively to the Divinely revealed unchanging Sacred Deposit of the Faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition] and is therefore irreformable, and therefore has performed a magisterial act solely his own and not the Church’s, that is inimical to all orthodox believers who keep the catholic and apostolic faith and which simultaneously is also foreign and inimical to the catholic and apostolic faith.

Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. (My emphasis)

[ii]CCC 2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. [Cf. LG 25; CDF, declaration, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3.]

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity. – Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981) of the great and saintly Supreme Pontiff Pope St. John Paul II (Sans references. My emphasis)

If we analyze certain statements of AL with intellectual honesty within their proper context, we find ourselves faced with difficulties when trying to interpret them in accordance with the traditional doctrine of the Church. This is due to the absence of the concrete and explicit affirmation of the doctrine and constant practice of the Church, founded on the Word of God and reiterated by Pope John Paul II, who said,

However the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that … they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

Professor Spaemann, you have accompanied the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI with your philosophy. Many believers are now asking, whether and how Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia should be read in continuity with the teachings of the Church and these previous Popes. How do you see this?

For the most part, it is possible, although the direction allows for consequences which cannot be made compatible with the teaching of the Church. Article 305 together with footnote 351 – in which it is stated that believers can be allowed to the sacraments “in an objective situation of sin” “because of mitigating factors” – directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio.

What then is Pope John Paul II’s exhortation about?

John Paul II explains human sexuality as a “real symbol for the giving of the whole person,” and namely, “without every temporal or other limitation.” He thus formulates very clearly in article 84 that remarried divorcés must refrain from sex if they want to go to communion. A change in the practice of the administration of the sacraments would therefore be no “further development of Familiaris consortio,” as Cardinal Kasper said, but rather a breach in her essential anthropological and theological teaching on marriage and human sexuality. The Church has no authority, without prior conversion, to approve disordered sexual relationships through the administration of the sacraments, thereby anticipating God’s mercy – regardless of how these situations are to be judged on a human and moral level. The door here – as with the ordination of women to the priesthood – is closed.

And a few days later, during the flight from Lesbos to Rome, Francis once again proposed Schönborn as the main exegete of the post-synodal exhortation, he being a “great theologian [who] knows well the doctrine of the faith,” as the pope described him. To the question of whether for the divorced or remarried there now is or is not the possibility, formerly precluded, of receiving communion, the pope responded with a peremptory and for once unmistakable: “Yes. Period.” But he recommended that none other than Schönborn be consulted for a more detailed reply.

“Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in ‘irregular’ situations?”, continued the cardinal. “Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio. ‘Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God’. … In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’, the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given in ‘certain cases’. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ and the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak'”.

The Church has up to now always had a clear attitude [Haltung] in this question [of the “remarried” divorcees], even if there has developed, already for quite a while now, a practice of receiving Holy Communion that is in opposition to the objective norms of the Church.”

Thus, says Gerstle, this current discussion is finally about receiving a “retrospective blessing” for a practice of disobedience about something that has heretofore been gravely forbidden by the Church. With regard to Amoris Laetitia, the German priest says: “In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis now gives permission to the individual priests and pastors to examine each individual case with regard to the possibility of receiving the Sacraments (Penance and Holy Communion).” Thus, Pope Francis does not anymore, “in a general way, exclude those couples who live in an irregular situation (to include cohabiting couples) from the reception of the Sacraments.” Gerstle stresses that Pope Francis does not anymore demand from these couples the binding requirement to live in continence. He adds: “This is indeed a novelty and is thus being celebrated by the representatives of the liberal direction as being revolutionary and as constituting a landmark decision.” However, in Gerstle’s eyes, those who “feel bound to the valid teaching of the Church, and who fear the watering down of the indissolubility of marriage,” see a “justified reason for the great concern that now there will follow a complete breech of the levée.”

With this new approach, Gerstle says, “the Church’s teaching – according to which the validity of the Sacrament of Confession is dependent upon a penitent’s true contrition and his firm purpose to avoid the near occasion of sin if possible – would be taken off the hinges.” [emphasis added] This would mean “a serious breech with the elementary principles of the Church’s moral teaching, as it had last been confirmed to be the irreformable teaching of the Church by St. John Paul II himself in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as well as in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio.

“Important magisterial tenets cannot be changed by half sentences or somewhat ambiguous footnotes,” the German archbishop said, alluding to the controversy over the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. He further warned, “Statements that can be interpreted in different ways are a risky thing.”

From the unchanging Sacred Deposit of Faith [= Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition], religious infidelity/idolatry is called immorality/fornication/adultery. The unchanging Sacred Deposit of Faith like God its Revealer does not change. When Israel committed idolatry [= playing the whore with demons/devils], even though they exchanged God, they did not change him.

Now a story about me and the wife of my youth:

I married the wife of my youth. She is pure, very beautiful, the mother of my children. She has been my companion and it has been wonderful together. She has been Mother showering me with such tender loving care.

At 11:30 AM on Friday, April 8, 2016 in Rome, a day which will live in infamy, my papa offered me a mistress saying I do not have to change my wife. My wife is still my wife, she does not, and she won’t change. Some of my uncles and aunties, some of my friends, and even some of my own brothers and sisters are telling me that the offer conditions by my papa are excellent and make it fine since my wife is not changing. To them, a tantalizingly very good offer not to be refused, they are envious. Oh, one more thing, the mistress is not attractive all! She is nothing compared to my wife, and can’t hold a candle to her, not even remotely, … and, she has been around the block … [doctrine of demons]

@VeriCatholici#ALConf Ch 8: “Accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness” is A NEW GOSPEL vs. "repent, and believe in the gospel"

After several months of intense activity by sectors that oppose the novelties of the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia – minorities, but hyperactive ones – or of strong attempts to disguise them, the war seems to have reached a stalemate. It is now worth pausing to acknowledge that which is concretely what Francis leaves to us as an irreversible novelty. (My emphases)

There Is No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—[a] 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10 Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant[b] of Christ.[c] – Gal 1:6-10 (RSVCE)

Footnotes:
a. After the greeting there is no commendation, as was usual, but rather strong rebuke.
b. Galatians 1:10 Or slave
c. No doubt Paul was accused of exempting Gentile converts from the law of Moses in order to curry favor.

[It’s spectacular misuse of GS 51 sure has, at least with me and those who are paying attention. …]

That those in supposedly ‘sanctifying’ ‘irregular situations’ who are admitted to the Eucharist include the divorced and civilly remarried who do not intend to abrogate their sexual relationship, is flagged in #298, where in footnote 329, a passage in G&S 51 which discusses the question of temporary continence within marriage, as taught by St Paul, is outrageously transposed to those not in a Christian marriage, i.e. in ‘irregular situations’, as an argument that they should not have to live as brother and sister. The intention, prefaced by a misrepresentation of St John Paul and a bare-faced lie about the meaning of G&S 51 is clear. So where is the difficulty in understanding what the Pope intends?
– 21 apr, A Year After “Amoris Laetitia”. A Timely Word by Dr. Anna M. Silvas | Settimo Cielo di Sandro Magister during April 22 Rome Conference of Laity to Call for Clarity on ‘Amoris Laetitia’

@VeriCatholici#ALConf Ch 8: “Accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness” is A NEW GOSPEL vs. “repent, and believe in the gospel”

With #AmorisLaetitia, Pope Francis Expands Kasper’s his Proposal

With #AmorisLaetitia, Pope Francis Allows not only the Divorced + Civilly Remarried to Access the Sacraments but also all People in “Irregular” Situations

My argument is in two parts. The first will be questions to ponder upon and the second will be to show that not only was Kasper’s proposal of admitting certain divorced + civilly remarried to communion in Amoris Laetitia, the pope has gone even further and expanded this to certain people in “irregular’ situations” of which the divorced + civilly remarried are of course a subset.

I. Questions to Ponder

1) The pope does not offer us case studies or recipes. Does he have examples of such case studies or recipes?

2) If yes, why did he not offer them for clarity?

3) If no, then on what basis did the pope affirm, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given in ‘certain cases’?

4) With the lack of the required clarity, how are the priests to ensure that the confessional is not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy and the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak?

One conclusion that one must therefore draw is that the lack of clarity and therefore the ensuing confusion is a purposeful strategy.[a]

II. Has the pope opened up access to the sacraments for people who live in ‘irregular’ situations?

First, the Kasper’s Proposal:

A divorced and remarried person:
1. If he repents of his failure in the first marriage,
2. If he has clarified the obligations of the first marriage, if it is definitively ruled out that he could turn back,
3. If he cannot abandon without further harm the responsibilities taken on with the new civil marriage,
4. If however he is doing the best he can to live out the possibilities of the second marriage on the basis of the faith and to raise his children in the faith,
5. If he has a desire for the sacraments as a source of strength in his situation, should we or can we deny him, after a period of time in a new direction, of “metanoia,” the sacrament of penance and then of communion?
This possible way would not be a general solution. It is not the wide road of the masses, but rather the narrow path of what is probably the smaller segment of the divorced and remarried, those sincerely interested in the sacraments. Should not the worst be avoided precisely here? In fact, when the children of the divorced and remarried do not see their parents approach the sacraments they too usually fail to find their way to confession and communion. Should we not take into account the fact that we will also lose the next generation and perhaps the one after it too? Our long-established practice, is it not showing itself to be counterproductive? [. . .] – Source: Kasper Changes the Paradigm, Bergoglio Applauds

Proceeding to answer:

Since the pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner [what does this even mean and what is its purpose here?], in a note[b] that the help of the sacraments may also be given to those ‘irregular’ situations in ‘certain cases’ and since divorced + civilly remarried are a subset of those in ‘irregular’ situations, then the pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given to the divorced + civilly remarried in ‘certain cases’[c]

What might the ‘certain cases’ be?

The pope has never repudiated Kasper’s proposal and it was at his invitation that Cardinal Kasper presented this proposal [which it is now clear was his all along] at the consistory in Feb 2014, therefore the conditions for the ‘certain cases’ to be admitted to the sacraments appear to be 1. thru 5. in Kasper’s Proposal.

“We all know many priests”, he said, who admit remarried divorcees to Holy Communion “without discussing or asking, and that’s a fact.” He added that it is “difficult to handle for the bishop,” and said he was “very happy” that the Pope in the document takes up the controversial approach he has adopted in Vienna.

This involves what he called “five attentions” made to remarried divorcees: a series of five questions the priest must ask to see how merciful and correctly they have behaved before, it can be inferred, they are able to receive Holy Communion. They include how they treat the children of their first marriages, how they treated their abandoned spouse, and how they dealt with unresolved hatred.
With this approach, the sacraments “come into another light,” he said. “It’s about the way of conversion.” – | VIDEO — Schönborn: ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Needs Serious Theological Discussion, BY EDWARD PENTIN 04/12/2016 | NCR

Has the pope opened up the access to the sacraments beyond the divorced + civilly remarried?

Yes he has, because the pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given to people who live in ‘irregular’ situations[of which the divorced + civilly remarried are a subset] in ‘certain cases’,

As Card. Pell said after the first Synod in 2014, it was never about the divorced + civilly remarried:

Antonio Socci also reaches the same conclusion:

Naturally – in all of this – Communion to the divorced and remarried is only a pretext, it is a question that interests no-one, not even the divorced: the “revolutionaries” have simply used “irregular couples” as an impetus to demolish the foundations of two thousand years of Catholicism.
And now there is a panorama of ruins set before the eyes of priests who are still Catholic, since – like skittles toppling – after the indissolubility of marriage, everything will come toppling down: confession, the commandments, the natural law. Most of all, the constant teaching of the Church emerges destroyed. – RORATE CÆLI: Antonio Socci: There has been a coup in the Church

And not just sexual morality. The whole structure of Catholicism will collapse. For if Jesus, who (we should remember) was no minor authority figure in the history of the Church, was wrong about marriage, who knows how many other things he was wrong about? And if Jesus was wrong, it is likely St. Paul and other New Testament writers were wrong. And if Jesus and Paul were wrong, who can be confident in the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church? One small leak in the dike.

Conclusion

From now on, it should be expected that not only will the divorced + civilly remarried present themselves to the priests in order to access the sacraments, but also people in ALL ‘irregular’ situations.

Footnotes:

a. I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”. [AL, 308]

b. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). – Cf. Footnote 351 [paragraph 305], AMORIS LAETITIA

… [T] he divorced and remarried de facto couples, those cohabitating…they’re certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic doctrine. But the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the Sacraments of reconciliation and of Communion must be given, even to those so-called ‘wounded families’ and to however many, who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment. – ‘It gives the feeling of a schism’: EWTN panel analyzes current ‘disaster’ in the Church | LifeSiteNews

(My emphasis)

The final result will be precisely in accord with Archbishop Bergoglio’s tacit practice for years in Buenos Aires. Make no mistake, the end game is a more or less indifferent permission for any who present for Holy Communion. And so we attain the longed for haven of all-inclusiveness and ‘mercy’: the terminal trivialization of the Eucharist, of sin and repentance, of the sacrament of Matrimony, of any belief in objective and transcendent truth, the evisceration of language, and of any stance of compunction before the living God, the God of Holiness and Truth. If I may adapt here a saying of St Thomas Aquinas: Mercy without truth is the mother of dissolution.
– A Year After “Amoris Laetitia”. A Timely Word by Anna M. Silvas, Rome, April 22, 2017